+ Sponsors

Tuesday, 21 April 2009

T.O.P. Ten Recommended Cameras: #4

Dear Mike,Given that so many people seem perturbed by the import (or lack thereof) of your numbering system, I recommend that your next list of ten recommended cameras use the following sensible numbering system to avoid unwarranted assumptions:

A37.2phialeph(1)sqrt(3-2i)integral (sinx^3/cosxy)kumquatFib(665)h-bar

and

Cherry Garcia

This should avoid any confusion.

Helpfully yours,Ctein

-

Happy Tuesday. I will have you know that it is snowing this morning at TOP World Headquarters in Wisconsin. It's a warm, slushy snow that will melt soon, but still—it's April 21st, and it's snowing. Just to prove it can.

Meanwhile, we're up to "kumquat" on the big list. (Unless Ctein meant for his numbering system to go the other way. And, how would you tell?)

Here it is:

"Wait," I hear you saying. "Hold on. The Panasonic LX3? Isn't that a step backward? What's going on here?"

What's going on is a nod to a phenomenon that's very important to me. Now, I don't mean to insult anybody; there's a wealth of great information on the internet, and many enthusiasts and experts share their time and knowledge very graciously. But some e-precincts, in sinister contrast, have become a sort of fetid swamp of shopping one-upsmanship, with every knowitall trying to put the next one down as swiftly and thoroughly as possible and competing to see who's mastered the the deepest arcane factoids about this or that camera. ("As any idiot knows, if you load the latest firmware and then hack it with the Boogerpicker mods, you can open the RAW files in ZiggyRaw and convert them to TIFFs and back again and get much better quality. Anyone who does not do this is not seeing what the camera is capable of.") What that sort of minute, extreme pixel-peepery tends to miss, not surprisingly, is the big picture—those rare answers to the question, what's a hit?

Exhibit A: in 1984, Leica took its M4-P, a camera which itself had nearly become a literal castoff a decade earlier, and grafted a simple coupled light meter to it. Viola, as my old viola teacher used to say: the M6. Ever taken a casual swing at a golf ball and pured it? Hit it right on the sweet spot so you hardly felt the ball leave the clubface, and almost lost sight of the ball, it went so far? The M6 was like that. Pure smash hit. Biggest seller for Leica since the M3, if I'm not mistaken. Exhibit B: in 1988, Nikon made its best attempt at non-pro AF, powered it with a fistful of AAs, added its then-still-new "Matrix" multi-segmented metering from the FA, a lovely "high-eyepoint" viewfinder, and a shutter that reached the then-awesome speed of 1/8000th sec. The N8008. It became virtually the autofocus Nikkormat. Big hit. Exhibit C: in 2005, Canon introduced the 5D, an advanced-amateur full-frame camera with a high pixel count. For some reason, the 5D seemed to hit a "sweet spot" of image quality. Incredibly, for the next several years the 5D had its little corner of the market all to itself, and real photographers (people who make pictures, I mean) flocked to it. It's still in wide use and has never become cheap on the used market.

I'm not saying that "hits" are all-time great or classic cameras, necessarily. They're just the designs where everything seems to come together. Designs that tend to be popular with real photographers (see definition above). That sell better than expected. That I tend to run across again and again when I'm roving around the world wide web looking for interesting work. That photographers I respect tend to own and use. That are somehow, ineffably, more than just the sum of their specifications and feature lists.

Now, I've never used the LX3 myself. I've handled the deluxe Leica version, called the D-Lux 4, in a camera store. (Mike Crivello's in Brookfield, which, if you happen to live in Milwaukee, has a pretty full display of Leica products in stock and on view.) It's a tiny jewel. But I believe I have pretty good sensory antennae for this sort of thing, and all my camera-senses tell me that the LX3 is one of these "hits."

The LX3 (typical price: $430) is such a big hit that it might be hard to get. Nobody can seem to keep them in stock for long. I swear, the LX3 was in stock at B&H when I started writing this list. Not now, although you can pay $270 more and get the Leica-branded version. (Also available in titanium for a mere $300 extra. Do I need to tell you to pass on that?) At least the D-Lux 4 has a swell leather case, available in brown or black, although of course there's nothing stopping you from putting a Panasonic LX3 in a Leica case.

If you've actually managed to get your mitts on one of these, consider yourself lucky.

ADDENDUM: Turns out the Panasonic case is even better than the Leica one, although for some reason it's not listed at either Amazon or B&H. See it here, buy it here. (Thanks to Andreas.)

Featured Comment by Ken Tanaka: "I can offer some hands-on remarks for this camera, Mike. I recently picked up the Leica version of this camera, the D-Lux 4. Having never used the standard Panasonic LX3 I cannot say whether the Leica premium delivers anything extraordinary. I highly doubt it. But the LX3 was not available anywhere.

"Coming mainly from the Canon G7/G9/G10 lineage of point-and-shoots I have to say that I've been impressed with this little guy. Although I'm normally a raw shooter I find that the raw files from this camera are pretty average (i.e. ho-hum), in common with all of these tiny cameras. But I'm finding that the JPGs are really rather special, with a smooth tonality, nice colors, and detail preservation in the shadows. This in-camera processing is really where the money is spent on these little cameras so it makes sense that this is where the camera might shine.

"In terms of usability I've found the D-Lux 4/LX3 pretty easy to get accustomed to. The one niggling issue is that removable lens cap; but I'm even getting used to that. Unlike the LX3, the D-Lux 4 has no finger grip. Adding the optional Leica grip makes the camera very easy and secure to handle with your right hand but, alas, like the grip for the Leica M8 it makes it somewhat awkward to quickly change cards or battery. It also negates your ability to use the custom cases. Sigh.

"One rather unique feature on this camera, and one which I really am beginning to like, are the analog switches for the lens mode (aspect ratios and standard/macro/manual focus). It sure beats twiddling with an electronic setting.

"I really don't understand the silliness over an 'external viewfinder' for this little cam. Leica actually makes one...at $350 or so. I tried using my Voigtländer 21mm viewfinder which frames the lens' widest angle nearly perfectly. But of course as soon as you zoom-in slightly your viewfinder frame isn't worth anything. And it can't inform you of focus status, etc. So unless you're really trying to build a mini-M the lcd is far better than a 'dumb' external viewfinder. Far more continuously informative, far more accurate, no physical inconvenience.

"For lower-light, though, the LX3 can't really match the Canon G9 or G10. Yes, I know that you've read just the opposite. But I'm here to tell you that it's bovine byproduct. The Canon Gs still hold the throne at ISO 800+.

"No, it's not the camera. But it's small, easy to use, has a very good lens, produces images with very good fidelity. Good choice, Mike."

Comments

I had an LX2 which I sold to buy a Canon G9. Reasons: (1) No optical finder--impossible to shoot in bright sunlight, (2) lens doesn't fold into body, an essential feature for a pocketable camera, and (3) poor RAW support (too many apps didn't handle the format).

I have the LX3 and it is a superb camera. I use Lightroom and Photoshop to my RAW files.

The fast wide lens really suits my needs and allows me to get the results I want, even with its small sensor. I am able to carry it in my pocket so that it is always with me; which is why I purchased it.

I don't know from the LX-3, though no doubt it is a a great camera for it's place in the scheme of things. I did take your point about cameras that fit the "sweet spot". For me, as an APS-C sensor (D)SLR, the Canon 30D hit and fit that spot nicely. I still think so, even now a 50D is my primary digital camera.

So I was pleasantly surprised when I failed to pass up a good deal and rather unexpectedly acquired a Canon 5D (mk I). (I didn't need no stinkin' "full frame").

As it turns out, a 5DmkI is, more or less, a full-frame 30D. And I do find that full frame is something I use and rather appreciate.

@1: not "impossible" to shoot without the LCD, surely. Crank it to the widest setting, estimate the framing and fire away. 10mp (on a relatively large sensor) provides latitude for cropping if necessary - especially in good sunlight.

Good choice. I have the Leica equivalent - was it silly to to lay out the extra $ for what is essentially the same camera (w/o a grip no less). Yep, but it was available in a local shop, there was $150 rebate and it was one of those cases where I just couldn't help myself. It may be the only Leica product I can ever afford. In any case, it is certainly the fast lens that sets this camera apart from the pack.

My first sweet camera was an OM1, eventually jilted for a Nikon FM and FE which have been with me since 1979, lightweight, rugged, fast handling and you can change the sensor every shot and the ISO every 36 shots. What digital camera will still be living a useful life after 30 years?
After cutting my digital teeth on a Coolpix 4500 (great lens, and they built the pyramids between successive exposures) I succumbed to a 5D a few years ago. A real viewfinder and great image quality but compared to the FM/FE it's big and intrusive, festooned with modal buttons, and demands serious body building to carry a camera bag and lenses. When cameras became computers we lost something, including the ability to estimate exposures to within half a stop.
The sweet spot for a small camera became a Fuji F10 for a few years (still does ISO 1600 better than most), but the LX3 has now seduced me with its lovely lens, manual controls, real hot shoe and high speed flash sync with FEC. And RAW. But I still try to raise it to my eye to take a picture. Damn. I really miss a good viewfinder. And simplicity.
Think I'll keep hold of my Nikons. Reckon they'll still be going when the others are long dead.

I don't play golf and I don't know about film cameras. I have owned a variety of small PS type digital cameras over the last few years. Periodically I succumb to the hype and buy the ‘Best’ PS camera of the moment. So far I’ve been disappointed with all of them. They were wonders of modern technology but none had very good image quality above ISO 200. Maybe this one is different.

Even though the LX3 is beautiful with the best lens known to man I’ll wait for the real deal. I’m not asking for state of the art low light performance just something as good as my 40D.

Julie,
Actually I don't...it's an old joke I had with a friend who's now dead. He used to write "voila" and I'd reply, viola? What's got anything to do with a viola? Which for some reason infuriated him from the first time I mentioned it, so of course I kept doing it.

It wasn't what killed him, I hasten to add. It took cancer to do that, fortunately after a very long and productive (and mostly healthy) life.

I do like viola (well, string quartets anyway) if that redeems me at all.

I love this camera. I had a Canon G9 for a short while before selling it to get the LX3. While the Canon was a great camera, I find the LX3 even better for my needs.

The f/2 lens has let me shoot in situations where I would have not been able to get a decent shot with the Canon. That extra stop can make a big difference when it comes to choosing ISO settings on these compacts, as the upper levels get very noisy.

I actually find the LX3 more pocketable than the G9 (although neither are really truly pocket-size); although the lens sticks out, it is less "boxy."

I do not miss the optical viewfinder, but I guess I don't do a lot of shooting in bright sunlight.

The dedicated ISO dial on the G9 was nice, though. The LX3 can be set up to have a shortcut going right to the ISO menu, which is great, but I really liked that physical dial.

I also find the image quality at 24mm to be better with the LX3 than the G9 at 35mm, despite being a much wider focal length (at least the one I had, maybe the compacts are subject to Canon's infamous copy variation too?); less CA and sharper corners. And of course the fact that it IS 24mm and the Canon's widest was 35mm. Downside is lack of telephoto range, but 99% of the time, I use it on 24mm. So far I have never wanted a longer focal length when using the LX3.

Overall, it's just what several others have said—it's a small camera that shoots pictures that I am happy with. It's not perfect and there are certainly things than can be improved, but so far I think it is the best compromise as far as advanced compacts go.

I almost always have it with me, and since I bought it, have used it much more than my Canon 20D, mostly because it is so much smaller easier to carry around all the time (and I usually carry the 20D with no grip and a Pentax pancake lens attached). Sure, the 20D is faster, much better at high ISOs, and has better "per pixel" image quality, but each has it's place and purpose. I've actually gotten a bit spoiled by the LX3 in some ways; I now wish I could have a f/2 24mm equivalent lens for my 20D that does not cost an arm and a leg and is not bigger than 50mm. Not going to happen though.

Yes, indeed, the LX3 is a sweet little thing that somehow remembers pictures even better than how I saw them, if you know what I mean (rather like the Olympus Mju in that respect). I'm regularly humbled by comparing the results of my labours with its RAW files to the effortlessly superior in-camera JPGs...

I love its true multi-aspect-ratio capacity, and it's a generally an understated delight to use, but I DETEST its Eezy-Slip mode dial -- talk about yer ha'porth of tar ... I'd tape the bastard thing down on "A", except I don't want to hurt the LX3's feelings.

I personally own a G10 and am incredibly fond of it, mostly because of the way it feels in my hand every time I pick it up (that's silly but so true!), but the LX3 is the one P&S that, it would seem, actually manages to top the Canon. I would love to get my hand on one and do side-by-side comparison tests. I particularly wonder how it does at high ISO compared to the G10, which appears a little weak in that domain.

"of course there's nothing stopping you from putting a Panasonic LX3 in a Leica case"

... except maybe, the (for-lack-of-a-better-word) grip? The Leica model has a flush and unadorned frontage.

I have an LX1, and would not be without its front grip. I use an ever-ready style 2 piece leather case, from Panasonic, which works well. They make a new one for the LX3 as well, but to the same degree that the Leica case is stylish, this one is un-.

Mike, if you don't care for April snow, we in Los Angeles were treated to 100+ temperatures yesterday (and more of the same today).

It is nice seeing the LX3 on this list. My niece in Spain is asking for help in selecting a camera, and the DLUX4 is on her short list. If the LX3 were available, my pleas to save money and get that would make sense. At least they understand they are paying for the red dot and nothing else, and since it isn't taking food off the table, I don't see a problem with wanting the Leica badge (even though I'd wait for the Panny).
She and her husband are definitely not gear heads, but they've done their research (including handling the potential purchases) and they've gotten good advice (like don't worry about mpix). I also recommended the Panasonic G1 when she mentioned they weren't averse to bigger cameras up to a budget limit of $1000.

PSU said: "And the flash shoe is just great for general dorking around."

Hmmmm, I think this is the best summation of a lot of what I do with my Canon 400D! Maybe I ought to think about getting one of these; would it make me more or less dorky? Nah, there's not much hope for me...lol.

The nifty lack of an optical viewfinder on the LX3/Leica D-Lux means we can all pay $150.00+ for the accessory hot shoe viewfinder, and pretend we are using a Leica IIIc mated with a 28mm F 5.6 Summaron.

Are photo anthropologists fifty years from now going to look at the greater body of work made by the general public from circa 1999 to 2009, and wonder why "arms length perspective" was all the rage?

Something that often puzzles me about comparisons between the g10/p6000/LX3: there are always samples (often at 100%) comparing the cameras at iso 800. However, the reviews often pay less attention to how each camera fares in low light in general.

In Ken's featured comment, he mentioned that the g10 looks better at ISO 800. But at most aperatures, the LX3 has a stop or more faster lens, reducing the need for ISO 800. Having never used any of the three high-spec P&S cameras (but trying to decide between them), I'm curious to hear someones comparisons about how they do in low-light, *in general*.

Rather than comparing all the cameras at the same 1/30th F4 ISO 800, how about trying to make the best possible shot of the same low light scene with each camera?

No doubt this camera can produce decent images usable for a variety of purposes -- they all can these days. But I remain skeptical of small sensors; there's usually something missing, to my eye, about the final product.

So, am I missing something -- has Panasonic / Leica really overcome the small sensor problem? And, Mike, hasn't the tiny sensor been your longstanding complaint against ALL such cameras?

Is it too much to ask for a LX3 with a APS-C (or 4/3) size sensor? (I know, I know, the DP2 ....)

robert e, I wouldn't jam a flash unit on it, but attach it either with a sync cable (via adapter to the hot shoe) or with a wireless transmitter. This could be an issue then, but hopefully the LVF is good enough in bad light - i mean shooting events/paries with such a combo and off camera flash is fun + gives probably better results than a dslr for the extended framing possibilites the little camera provides. I did that last january at a birthday party with an oly c5050z and was very satisfied, though the oly is slow in operation. But it remembers up to 8 (eight!) custom settings, including focal length and focus distance, so you set it to hyperfocal effectively. This is my concern with the lx3, since as I understand, it can't remember focal length nor focus distance.

For me, the perfect combo would be a ricoh body with the lx3 lens. So long I prefer the 1.8 lens of the c5050z with custom settings to work around its shortcomings. And save the money for a nice flash wireless transmitter ;-)

Btw, noone ever mentions or did mention the oly c5050z when talking about serious compacts. I think regarding operation and controls as well as lens reach and speed, this was the perfect camera. If it only was a tad faster.

Ken Tanaka wrote:"This in-camera processing is really where the money is spent on these little cameras so it makes sense that this is where the camera might shine."

Very true, but in this case I think there's a bit too much going on under the hood.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember that the LX3 software is doing some pretty heavy-handed perspective correction as well. And Adobe even had to implement automatic correction for this in their RAW processing software. The result was that you'd end up with funky looking perspective if you tried to work on RAW files in the wrong post-processing or cataloguing software.

A beautiful design for the most part, but I wish Panasonic would take a few more styling cues from Leica (except for the big red dot). There is a little too much *stuff* on this camera. What is that shiny outline on the grip? What is that big scripty "L" on the front lower right? And they had to write Mega O.I.S. 24mm Wide in Red?

As the saying goes, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". While your claim isn't quite so extraordinary, it does go against what many have said. It'd help if there was something back that opinion up instead of passing the contrary off as bullshit. Is it the loss of low-contrast detail at higher ISOs? Or a case of the G10's higher resolution brute-forcing its way when you print at a smaller size?

James,

Indeed, I'm not fond of *clueless* marketing intruding on design at times.

"IT NEEDS TO SCREAM THE FEATURE! LET'S PUT IT IN RED! BOLD!"

Oh well. I suppose there's nothing I can't do with the right chemical mix...

PS. Personally, I think both the Leica and Panasonic cases are described with a term around these parts that is reserved for old farts and outdated and unfashionable concepts. But that's just me.

@ Kent: "Correct me if I'm wrong , but I seem to remember that the LX3 software is doing some pretty heavy-handed perspective correction as well" After working with several hundred RWLs and a similar number of JPGs from this camera I think you're wrong. In fact, last weekend I was using the camera to shoot a scene where perspective management was a very important characteristic. I observed no perspective issues, beyond a bit of normal barreling on close-in verticals at 24mm. The only LX3/D-Lx 4 quirk I've observed thus far is its tendency to under-expose brighter scenes by approximately 1/3 stop.

You may very well remember something about the camera, Kent, but I've not observed any evidence of heavy-handed processing in its files.

@ YS: It's not clear to me specifically what part of my remarks you challenge. That the LX3 lags the G10 at higher ISOs? If so, I guess you'll just have to take my opinion as just that; a first-hand observation opinion. I do not find the LX3 / D-Lux 4's ISO 800 files very usable in comparison with those from the G10. (Note: I don't play with synthetic in-camera b&w or other funky processing. I want the file from the camera to be as high of a fidelity to the scene as possible. I've also not adjusted the LX3's noise processing settings from it's defaults, so perhaps there are undiscovered secrets there.)

Regarding custom cases, I agree that custom cases for these cameras are expensive rather prissy accessories. After all, the premise of these little cameras is that they're pocketable and quick to action. But I'd not condemn their purchasers so summarily. People buy stuff, particularly camera stuff, for many
reasons. Some practical, some impractical. Consider, for example, the "old fart" that sees you taking pictures and summarily declares that cameras are for children.

Actually Mike's post on the Canon point and shoot inspired me to go buy a SD1100 that they are selling refurbed at Adorama for 120 bucks. I did the "Boogerpicker mods" and now I have a cute little camera that shoots in Raw, has a built in intervalometer, flash syncs at some ridiculous shutter speed of around 1/10,000 , calculates DOF and brackets focus and can be set up as a motion detector that wakes up when someone walks by, focuses on their face, and keeps taking their picture until they go away. What fun! And it even takes surprisingly good pictures at 1/2 second hand held. And fits in an old eyeglasses case cut in half. I haven't tried the special triggered by lightening mode or the full control by radio on a kite mode yet.

The shoots in raw and fits in any pocket a little larger than the change pocket of my pants for less than a Diana with a flash part is the best part of the deal though.

If your niece is in Spain she could buy a LX3 from Technikdirekt.de - they are in stock and shipping is only 22 Euro or something. Always worth checking them if you are in the EU (I am only a happy customer).

I think the comments regarding "sweet spot" could apply to a large proportion of the Lumix range. While I tend to avoid digicams myself, I've done a lot of research and handling in this area for friends and family.

Don't you love the way that if you happen to own an expensive camera that makes you THE person to advise on every other camera ever made?

Anyway - regardless of the interests and requirements (and budget!) Panasonic always seems to have a model that if not at the top of my short list is always in the top 3.

A dozen or so have bought a Lumix of one type or another on my recommendation, and all have been very happy.

Sorry for not being clear enough. I was typing in this little text box and I guess I don't compose my thoughts so well in a constrained space.

Yes, I was talking about high ISO settings (well, ISO 800). I know the Panasonic does a few tricks with its image processor to give the images a boost in higher ISOs. One of them is to raise the floor on the data from the sensor; that reduces noise, but also destroys low contrast shadow detail. So I was asking if that was one of the parts you found objectionable. Many people have found the LX3 better than the Gs in this area (and it's more than just the reviewers), so I just wanted to know why. It'd certainly be useful if I ever got the camera (yes, I'm still afraid of getting it).

On cases,

I might get a good tease out of it, but in general I've come to understand people can have their own personal internal logic when it comes to these things. Still, my own sense of logic and taste directs me to say:

Mike,
You didn't notice that I was having fun too? Now I'm offended!
But seriously, I'd put a Dymo "boogerpicker" label on the camera in your honor but I don't think there is really enough room. Maybe a big red circle that reads "B-picker", yeah that's the ticket.

I had the original LX-1. I finally let it go several months ago. I do miss the frame size switch and 9 x 16 framing. It was one damn good pocket cam. And despite the protruding lens I did carry it in a shirt pocket.

Yay! I had an LX2 that I LOVED for its handling, but was highly annoyed that I couldn't use it north of ISO 100 (extreme noise). When the LX3 was announced I checked the list of features and it was as if Panasonic had asked me personally to design the upgrade. I got one and I love it!

My only complaints are that even with the handgrip it feels very slippery, and more annoying, the "clicker" on the mode dial is really loose. In other words, the dial is way too easy to turn. I have never, not once, taken it out of my pocket/bag and found it still on the same mode as when I put it away.

And it frequently gets knocked out of my desired shooting mode by simply brushing my finger against the dial. That can be a real problem for me, as I do a lot of discreet "from the hip" shooting (for this project: http://fromthehipmontreal.wordpress.com/) where I'm taking it on faith that the settings are correct. (Too often they are not because the dial was accidentally moved.)

Fix that, and add a dial for ISO, and you'd have something that I'd call nearly perfect!

I have the LX3 and it is truly wonderful. Downside is lack of optical v/f as the screen, like all I've seen, is hard to use in bright light. Still a Voigtlander 24 finder is not expensive - I use a 21 as I have one already.

The LX3 is nicer than the DLux 4 because it has a very useful and ergonomic handgrip. Unfortunately this means that the LX3 does not fit in the nice DLux 4 case. Personally I see no need for an ERC for this type of camera.

Count me out of the LX3 love-fest. I bought a Leica D-Lux 4 from Calumet just before a trip to New Orleans. It took me a while to donwload the pictures, but I was distinctly unimpressed and returned the camera. Noise at ISO 1600 I expect, and the D-Lux 4 is not too horrendous in this respect (although not as good as my Fuji F31fd). I had taken test shots at ISO 1600 in the store before buying.

What really turned me off was the abysmal grain at ISO 320, very visible in skin tones. Even at the base ISO 80 you can see powdery texture in areas of flat color. I use RAW and Lightroom. I wouldn't be surprised if the supplied RAW converter applies heavy-handed noise reduction and the people who like it are using that converter.

The Sigma DP1 (and presumably the DP2), is far superior in the image quality department. I placed an order for the DP2 (the 28mm-e on my DP1 is too wide for my taste) with the money I got back from the D-Lux 4.